|
Responsibility #25
(written prior to July 1992)
To the People of the United States of America:
How can the Supreme Court play a greater role in assuring good and timely government?
Greater roles have already been proposed (Responsibility #8 and #9) for the Supreme Court: (1) that the nominations of federal judges and justices be the responsibility of the Judiciary rather than the President; (2) that Senate confirmation hearings be presided over by a Supreme Court Justice; and (3) that high profile Congressional hearings also be chaired by a Justice.
Perhaps the greatest shortcoming of the Supreme Court (outside of its mistakes) is that it is not all that it can and should be. The Supreme Court is made up of only one panel. It stays in session only nine months of the year (except for rare or infrequent special sessions). Sickness, incapacity, or delay in confirmation of one (or more) of the nine justices can cause delay or deferment (even to the next session) of vitally important cases.
The Court is highly selective in which cases it will take on each session. A great part of this is due to the capacity of a Court of a single panel. Excerpts from Leon Friedman's book, "The Supreme Court" are explicative:
"Each year, the state and federal courts decide hundreds of thousands of cases. About 4,000 of these cases are appealed to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court had to accept all of them, the justices would have to hear and write decisions on about 30 cases every working day--an impossible task. So the Supreme Court doesn't hear every case that is presented: the justices choose only the most important cases for appeal--usually about 200 cases each year. ....
Besides appeals, the Supreme Court hears a small number of new cases each year that are within the Court's original jurisdiction. The only cases that fall into this category are ones involving disputes between the states, .... Because of the importance of these disputes and the states' need for quick decisions, the Constitution provides original jurisdiction for them in the Supreme Court."
As a result of these limitations on cases to be heard, cases are remanded to the inferior courts; cases are postponed to the next session; cases remain in limbo indefinitely; and the Court can defer hearings and decisions, that it would prefer not to face. Perhaps worst of all, the nation has no means of resolving constitutional issues, until after they have had ill and sometimes disastrous effects.
Political consequences inhibit the President and the Congress, from facing up to controversial issues, that would involve a confrontation with the Supreme Court. Political candidates, incumbents, and parties can make political hay in speeches lambasting the Supreme Court for activism, and then sit on their hands rather than overly provoke affected special interest groups. For examples, we need look no further than the abortion travesty, and the war powers controversies, that have been covered in prior Responsibility papers.
As for the States, they are wimps. They rear back in awe, at the power that has escaped to the federal government. Individually or in concert, they seldom fight beyond their borders. Governors' conferences get media attention, but seldom aggressively fight federal impingement on States' prerogatives. State legislatures confine themselves to State legislation, and go home. They do not test their ability to follow national legislation, and to direct or influence the actions of their Senators and Representatives, in respect thereto.
Do they recall their "ambassadors" (members of Congress) for consultations, when they ascertain that their State has been wronged, by a decision of the SUPREME Supreme Court? Are they capable of mustering several or many States, to peacefully confront the federal government, on an issue (particularly one like school busing where the Supreme Court clearly stepped on State legislatures' power of the purse)? Where is it written, that the federal government has unlimited power to tax by any and all means, and then to exert unlimited power over the States, by doling out federal appropriations? It's time that the States speak up as they did before the Civil War!
Justice is not just unless it is also timely. When our country was first formed under the new Constitution, the Supreme Court consisted of only six Justices. When the Supreme Court was not in session, the Justices also rode the Circuits as Judges in the inferior courts. The Court has always consisted of a single panel, and its number has been fixed at nine since 1869. It is time that the number of Supreme Court Justices be increased, and that they function in multiple panels. The size of the Court should be governed by timely justice, not the capacity of a single panel of nine.
The Supreme Court should plan to hear all of the appeals (except those that should clearly be remanded), and all of the original jurisdiction cases, in the year that they are referred to the Court. Similar to original jurisdiction, there should be a (controlled) means for the President, the Congress, the States, and We the People, to refer compelling constitutional questions to the Supreme Court, before (perhaps dire) experience necessitates a trial in State or inferior federal courts, and then entail the lengthy appeal process. The Court should be in session year round, staggering the absences of individual Justices as necessary.
How could this work? A few suggestions may serve for argument. The federal Judiciary could be made up of Justices and Judges, designated permanent and temporary. Expansion of the Court would entail nomination and confirmation of new (or recall of temporary) Justices. Contraction would be accomplished by assignment to the inferior courts by a pecking order (seniority) basis. Like riding the Circuits in the 1790s, this flexibility might even be infrequently utilized within a session, to relieve logjams in the lower courts, if the Supreme Court has some unanticipated slack. The military has extensive experience, with this type arrangement for its senior officers.
Panels of say 5 each (or the optimum odd number based on Court experience) would be assigned to cases by the Chief Justice. Justices would serve on multiple panels. The Chief would be responsible to ensure that the panels were reasonably balanced, without any intended bias. Oversight responsibility could be assigned to Congress. The position of the Chief would entail greater executive tasks, reducing his own assignment to panels. The position of the Chief could be a turnover arrangement, through election or reelection by the Justices every five years.
We will wind up the discussion of the Supreme Court in the next essay.
Publius IV
|